The State of Education in Nigeria

Transcription

1 DEREGULATION OF EDUCATION IN NIGERIA: IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION Abstract Dappa Tamuno-Omi Godwin 1, Victoria Pase 2 and Okemini Iheayichukwu 3 1&2 Dept of Political Science, Rivers State University of Education,Port Harcourt, Nigeria. 3 Dept of Political Science and Public Administration, Rivers State University of Education, Port Harcourt [email protected] Funding of public education at the tertiary level is primarily the responsibility of government at both federal and state levels. Public universities that constitute over 80% of universities in Nigeria are currently facing Infrastructure decay as a result of massive and chronic under-funding. The drives by universities for self-sustenance have yielded insignificant results. Deregulation of education is being bandied as the only viable solution to the perennial under-funding of universities in Nigeria. This paper focuses on deregulation of university education and the resultant benefits. The affordability of high tuition that is engendered by deregulation is considered. It agrees that with deregulation university education will no longer before public good have access to university education. It concludes that quality education and equality of access based on merit may not be guaranteed under a deregulated university education system in Nigeria. Key words: Deregulation, under-funding, quality, equality, access Introduction The State of Education in Nigeria Nigeria in the last two decades has had a rather phenomenal but unplanned expansion of higher education. (Bako,2002). The result has been the unfolding crisis of a general systematic collapse afflicting all the tertiary institutions with apparently no generally acceptable or consensus solutions. As at year 2002/2003 session, Nigeria has 47 universities. This number is comprised of 25 federal universities, 15 state universities and seven private universities (JAMB, 2003/4; Okebukola, 2002). According to Bako, Nigeria has over 50% of Africa s total number of universities and enrollment. However this is less than a quarter of universities in the United State of America. All stakeholders including the World Bank have conceded the protracted crises in universities. The procedure for extensive surgical reform has resulted in glaring contestation among the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), the Nigerian government and the World Bank. While the academic staff has pursued great government commitment to funding education through effective taxation system, the present government has consistently insisted on granting veiled autonomy, privatization and deregulation. The World Bank through its two projects has tended towards deregulation of university education in Nigeria. The first futile attempt was in the early 1990s with the highly contested $120 million loan facility and its conditionality. The Federal Universities Sector Adjustment Credit (FUSAC) was intended to rehabilitate the universalities by adjusting them within the framework of structural adjustment programme (Bako 2002). The second attempt was the introduction of a harsher and tougher programme of total restructuring and deregulation. This was articulated in its million US dollars programme called Nigeria University System Innovation Project (NUSIP) (Ita 39

2 2004). The federal government has now been emboldened to implement deregulation of university education through legislation and executive decisions. The focus of this paper is the implication of deregulation of university education on access to university education by citizens of this country. This will be done with the examination of the term deregulation, the analysis of the present strategies for enabling free or equitable access to university education and the dangers of deregulation of tertiary education and the need to have a refocus on other channels for proper university funding and management. Deregulation of Education Deregulation is primarily an economic term that developed from the free market economy of Adam Smith. It is based on the doctrine of laissez faire that favours capitalist self-interest, competition and natural consumer preferences as forces leading to optimal prosperity and freedom (Encarta Encyclopedia 2003). However, in a free market economy, government is expected to provide education, which is a public good. As a public good its consumption by one individual does not reduce the amount of the good its consumption by one individual does not reduce the amount of good left for others. Secondly, The benefits that an individual receives do not depend on that person s contribution (Encarta Encyclopedia 2003). Deregulation of education means that education is no longer a public good. Its consumption by an individual is now deemed to possibly reduce the amount of good left for others. Secondly the benefits that an individual receives most now depend on that persons contribution. Deregulation breeds competition and hence expectation of high yields or dividends or profits from investment. It means sale of knowledge to the highest bidder and hence possible lowering of standards for the attraction of customers (Kaplan 2002). A deregulation higher education means dismantling of legal and governmental restrictions on the operations of certain business this time university education. Government would no longer be involved in the establishment, owning, funding and management of universities in Nigeria. As a deregulated sector, education must become a private enterprise undertaken by private individuals or corporate bodies who hope to realize profit from their activities. This is because they invest and must bear any risk associated with those activities (Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003). Even when not looked at from the point of view of public good, the free market economy as inherently effective has been challenged by George Akerlof, a co-winner f the 2001 Nobel price in economics (Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003). Even when not looked at from the point of view of public good, the free market economy as inherently effective has been challenged by George Akarlof, a co-winner of the 2001 Nobel price in economics (Enarta Encyclopedia, 2003). He disagreed with the idea that an invisible hand reconciled an individual s private pursuit of economic gain with the public good and that therefore a market operated best and most efficiently as a free market with out government regulation. He held that markets operate inefficiently if there is unequal distribution of information about the commodities being traded. The Nigerian government may want to imitate Burundi that recently announced the closure of its public education system in three years. Private sector, it holds, will be able to provide for the country s educational needs when in actual fact private education is said to have a parasitic relationship to the public education system. This seems to be the case in Nigeria. Implications of Deregulation on Access to University Education 40

3 Several declarations have been made with. respect to access to higher education. The United Nations Declaration of Human rights reads in part everyone has the right to education and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit (Kaplan, 2003). Secondly section 18.1 of the Nigerian Constitution of 1979 emphasized that government shall direct its policy towards ensuring that there are equal and adequate educational needs when in actual fact private education is said to have a parasitic relationship to the public education system. This seems to be the case in Nigeria. Implication of Deregulation on Access to University Education Several declarations have been made with respect to higher education. The United Nations Declaration of Human rights reads in part everyone has the right to education ---- and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit (Kaplan, 2003). Secondly section 18.1 of the Nigerian Constitution of 1979 emphasized that government shall direct its policy towards ensuring that there are equal and adequate educational opportunities at all levels. (Baikie, 1999). Thirdly access to tertiary education is entrenched in the National Policy on Education revised in The policy recognizes the disparities that exist in the country, Baikie (1999) recognized that problems have been created by noticeable disparities in education between sections of the country. The statement is strengthened by data from JAMB on the distribution of applications into universities by some states of the federation. UME Applications by States (2001/2002) Table 1: The Table below Shows a Breakdowns of the States having the Highest and Lowest Candidates: S/N States No. of Applicants (Highest) 1 Imo 78, Delta 66, Anambra 56, Edo 54, Ogun 50, Ondo 37,346 Total 342,680 S/N States No. of Applicants (Lowest) 41

4 1 Borno 3, Katsina 2, Kebbi 2, Taraba 2, Yobe 1, Zamfara 523 Total 11,717 Source: JAMB (UME Admission Statistics 2004) The table above shows the disparities between the north and south which will be further increased with deregulation as a result of the foreseen reduction in the interest in the north at female education (Bako, 2002). The demand for university education is growing as available records indicate increase in university intake between 1996 and This, however, fall shot when compared with the number seeking admission into universities. Table 2: Demand for and Intake into Nigerian Universities Year No. Admitted % of Application No. of Applications 1996/97 56, , /99 78, , /01 50, ,138 Source: JAMB (UME Admission Statistics 2004) There are regulations by government and his agencies on balancing of access to university education. These include the quota system of admissions. This relates not only to geographical spread that gives fair chanced to indigenes from various states in Nigeria but to access to academic and professional disciplines on the basis of ratio. Deregulation cannot guarantee the existence of these regulations or waivers on admission (Kaplian, 2002). The first casualty is the scraping of JAMB, a body that is established primarily to help applicants from some educationally disadvantaged states gain access to universities. It is not necessarily to lower the standard of those entering for the best in each of the states are given the opportunity to enter and obtain university degree. The universities when deregulated would have admissions policy deregulated. The National Universities Commissions (NUC) would be seriously handicapped as a monitoring and control body with respect to admission using quota system (Okebukala, 2002). On the other hand, JAMB had succeeded in reducing to its barest minimum the incidence of multiple admissions by candidates to universities, a situation that existed before 1978 when JAMB commenced operation. This again will reduce the number or registerable candidates by each of the universities even though it will create a high rate of competition. This last aspect is bound to create unhealthy rivalry that is bound to result in lowering of admission and academic standards to be able to woo candidates. The case of pre-degree and diploma programmes run by some universities is recalled here. In an attempt to circumvent the admission guidelines of JAMB, some universities resort to pre-degree programmes with a views not only to admit candidates of their choice but also 42

5 to beef up the intake into candidates strapped departments in the universities. If the National Universities Commission (NUC) and federal government could not reverse this trend in her own universities, the situation with privatized or deregulated universities stands very glaring. Government seems to agree with the submission of Morgan (2002). According to her, government intends to decrease its oversight of industry in order to create more competitive markets that provide better ser vices at lower costs to customers. The current deregulation drive in the petroleum sector in Nigeria is a complete negation of this apparent benefit. Of note is the finding of Morgan that deregulation has produced negative effects in United States of America. Complaints abound that the practice has resulted in increased corruption, reduction in customer service, fewer customer rights and no real change in price. Deregulation as in the case of petroleum products in Nigeria gives room to increase in the cost of products made available. Deregulation of university education will engender a sharp and monumental increase in tuition. Accessibility of university education is mostly hinged on the cost that relates to payment of affordable tuition. It has been established that a greater percentage of candidates admitted on merit into the various programmes in the public universities in Nigeria re children from the low-income group. Reports also allege that a vast majority found inn private (high tuition) universities are children from the middle and high-income group in Nigeria. Thus deregulation will further reduce the changes of low-income group from gaining access into universities in Nigeria. With regard to cost implications of attendance, public university education in Nigeria is run at governmentsubsidized rate. Presently there is no state or federal university in Nigeria that charges less than N thousand for its undergraduate courses. According Bako (2002) to more than 65% of students in public universities are from below average families in terms of income. More than50% of these stress out to be able to meet the financial requirements of the highly subsidized university education. Government had in year 2000 claimed to have subsidized each undergraduate to the tune of between N200,000 for the various degree programmes. Deregulation is anti-subsidy. Reliance on bursary awards, scholarships and loans schemes could not be sustained for long when they were introduced. There is no guarantee of their being successfully implemented under deregulation. What is currently happening in United States may occur in Nigeria under deregulation. According to Morgan (2002) white (and wealthy) parents have brought suits with increasing frequency to attain greater control over the education of their children by curtailing the authority of school officials to control the mix of students in such schools. There is currently the allegation that one of the private universities in Nigeria determines admission on the basis of religion. There is also the alleged deprivation of students interactions with ideologically diverse groups of their peers. What they have not realized is that through these encounters students can select the values and beliefs that form the core of their adult selves. Those experiences are essential to learning to function in our increasingly hydrogenous society. There are also arguments that deregulation will greatly diminish public space (Kaplan 2002; QUFA 2001; Morgan Public institutions are one of the few inn United States and other countries where people from different background come together to negotiate and discuss common values and to determine the course of shared future. Public places such as these give meaning to citizenship. The quota system and JAMB is semblance of the attempts at achieving a shared vision. 43

6 The girl child has had opportunity for university education because of the quota system and the regulation of tuition payment in federal; and state universities. Culture and parental attitude account for the low intake of females into the universities. Table 3: Male/Female Ratio of Admissions into Universities Year Total Male % Female % 1996/97 56,055 33, , /99 78,550 47,170 60,05 31, /01 50,277 31, , Source: JAMB (UME Admission Statistics 2004) According to Jibril (1996) the girl child has opportunity for university education because of low tuition and government sponsorship. Preference for male education will be engendered with deregulation of university education. The expected increase in tuition will influence family decision on who goes to the university among several interested and qualified children. The odds are against the girl child (Anikweze 1999). Deregulation cannot achieve more than what the quota system and subsidy has done. Conclusion and Recommendations There is no doubt that deregulation in education has been an is being practiced in some countries of the world. The peculiar circumstances in Nigeria cannot guarantee any meaningful success in resolving the myriad of crises that have engulfed the university system. The first step in attempting to strike a balance in the viewpoint of stakeholders in university education is the establishment of private universities in Nigeria. More universities by the private sector can bring about a healthy rivalry between private and public universities. A rigorous tax drive stands as the major avenue for getting more revenue for university education. Recently, the Lagos State Government was said to be owned more than 11 billion Naira from tax defaulters (Akoni 2004). All forms of taxes including education tax should be rigorously pursued. More stringent machineries must be put in place in universities to monitor and control excessive and spurious expenditure by university management. Government must not shy away from the primary responsibility of providing tertiary education as specified in the national constitution and the national policy on education. Publicly funded universities must continuously exist and be made accessible to all students motivated and talented to enroll in any programme. The introduction of tuition into public universities cannot be avoided. This can be used to meet the short fall from the budgetary allocation and internal generation. It must not be subjected to any kind of deregulation. Uniform fees must be charged in federal universities and such amount should be based on agreement among the stakeholders in the university system References 44

7 Akoni, O. (2004) Lagos government sets up committee to recover 11 billion tax. Vanguard, April 30; retrieved May 15 from Wevsite:http\\ Akpamgbo, C.O. (2002) Nigeria at a perilous threshold, Weekly Trust: Retrieved 5/5/2004 from website : Anikweze, C.M. (1999) Equalization of educational opportunities:dissonance between access and demand in Nigeria.The Academy of Education held at the Federal College of Education Kano 16 th 20 th November, pp Baike, A (1999) Keynote address at the 13 th Annual Congress the Academy of Education held at Federal College of Education Kano, 16 th to 20 th November.ppxiv xxvii Bako, S. (2002) Union, State and the crisis of Higher Education:The latest phase of struggle for and against restructuring and deregulating the Nigerian Universities. Paper Presented at the 10 th CORESRIA General Assembly held in Kampala, Uganda 8 th 12 Dec. Encarta Encyclopedia (2003) Deregulation, CDROM Ita, B. (2004) ASUU Blames FG, IMF over varsity funding, Daily Trust (Abuja) April 22. JAMB (2000/2004) UME Admission Statistics. Retrieved. 3/5/2004 at file://a:\jambong.com%20-2httm Kaplan D. (2002) Education is not a commodity. A paper presented at the International Conference against Deregulation held in Berlin, February. Morgan, D. (2002) Deregulating Education in the United States, From Vouchers to home schooling to the end of voluntary Deregulation. Retrieved April 22, 2004 from Finalw.com/commentary/Website:// Okebukola, P. (2002) The State of University Education in Nigeria. Abuja: National Universities Commission Worika, I.L. (n.d) In support of Deregulation: Stirring the Hornets Nest: Retrieved 27/4/2004 from website: Deregulation.htm 45